That Gay Marriage should be legal

To save time and promote clarity in debate writing, I will be reiterating my usual formatting.

Direct quotations are in "quotes."

Important points will be in bold.

Indirect quotes and summaries will usually be italicized.

And finally, sources will be hyperlinked and turned into superscripts0.

Special thanks as always to the judges and the opponent!

The Gay Marriage debacle continues once again! Pro has chosen to take the position that Gay Marriage should be legal and recognized in the same way as marriages between straight couples. In other words, marriage between two people of the same physical sex should be legally recognized and treated as an equivalent of marriage between two people of differing physical sex.

In Pro's opinion, most of the work lies with the opponent, who must prove that there is a reason why marriage between two persons of the same physical sex is in any way inferior to those of people with differing sexes. In anticipation, we would like to start by dismissing some of the most common arguments often taken by those on the opposing side of this issue preemptively, which we have broken down into the following points.

1) Gay Marriage is against traditional Christian values!

A popular argument from the so-called "moral majority," particularly in America. There are a multitude of problems with this argument, the first of which is that it fails to recognize the separation of Church and State. Marriage is a state-based, legal contract between two people. While it is generally accepted as romantic, at its most base form, all it is is a legal form filled out by two consenting adults, no different than a business deal. To bring religious rejections of legal matters up is a poor idea. We would suggest before the opponent - or anyone on the Con side of this discussion - make this argument, replace the word "Christian" with the label of another religion. If something went against, say, Islamic values, would we feel the same making that argument in a legal scenario? Would we be interested in listening to the person making said argument?

Furthermore, if one were to go this route, they would then be forced to discuss all the forms of marriage that are considered acceptable in the Bible. This includes the following:

Polyamorous Marriage, Genesis 4:19 (and many others)

Levirate Marriage, Genesis 38:6-10. This form of marriage, otherwise known as brother-in-law marriage, saw women being married to their brother-in-law if they were widowed with no son.

Man, Woman, Property (Female Slaves!) Genesis 16

Man, Woman, Concubines, Genesis 21:10

Male Soldier and Female PoW (Prisoner of War), Numbers 31:1-18

Rapist and Victim, Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Male Slave and assigned Female Slave, Exodus 21:4

Pro is curious whether the opponent is interested in defending these on the basis of religious liberty, as well. If so, we are happy to provide further context.

2) Gay Marriage is bad for Children!

Another common argument with two major issues. The first in this case is that there are many marriages between couples who cannot have children at all. Pro assumes that the judges and the opponent are not of the opinion that marriages are not valid unless they give rise to children. Similarly, many unmarried couples stay together over long periods of time and do, in fact, have children. Therefore the idea that marriage has anything to do with children in the first place is somewhat questionable.

The second problem is of course that this statement simply is not true. The abundance of sources on this subject is difficult to even begin describing how wrong this statement is, but in a study conducted at the University of New Hampshire, it was found that "the claims of the direct negative effects that homosexual parents have on their children’s development have largely been refuted1."

3) If you let Gay couples get married, it devalues my straight marriage!

Pro fails to understand this argument at the outset. In what way does a marriage of two other people, whether you associate with them or not, impact the quality of your marriage? In no way should gay couples getting married affect anything to do with the marriages of straight couples, except, perhaps, the availability of wedding venues.

Pro feels we have dismissed the most common arguments against the legalization and recognition of gay marriages, while simultaneously making our case proper for why they should be legal and recognized - which boils down, quite simply, to the fact that there is no reason they shouldn't.

We appreciate the Judges time and look forward to the opponent's argument.

nzlockie@Phos, the reason is not cool is because these two are having a competition. If people chip in from the sidelines publically like you did, it can influence the outcome, or the minds of other judges reading the comments.
I realize that's not what you intended, which is why I was trying to be polite, but a private message would have been more appropriate. It would give GK the chance to answer you clearly without potentially arguing his case in the comments section.

Posted 2018-09-07 02:30:19

GuitarKirbyIt's cool. But nz's point here is that offering up specific criticisms for debates should wait until the judging round, or if you have advice for a debater, wait until the debate is over or offer it privately.

I had been planning to go into greater detail on these verses in later rounds if necessary, which you may have seen had you waited.

Posted 2018-09-06 14:09:49

Phos Halas@nzlockie, I don't really see what's not cool about it, guitar Kirby didn't seem to mind, and isn't that what the comment section is for? @guitarkirby I apologize if I interfered in your debate somehow.

Posted 2018-09-06 12:11:23

nzlockie@Phos Halas - not cool to do this publically before this debate has finished bro.
You should have waited or else private messaged.

Posted 2018-09-06 07:30:26

GuitarKirbyPhos Halas,
Actually, that verse in Deuteronomy 17 could be interpreted as disallowing greed or amassing too much wealth/property, especially given the context of putting wives on the same plane of importance as silver and gold. Jacob of Canaan had many wives and sons, as well.

The point here was not to dwell on Biblical verses as that is an entirely separate debate, but to make the point about different forms of marriage present in the Bible, even among the chosen of God.

I'd like to thank you for helping make an additional point with the Deuteronomy verse, as well. With so many ways to interpret Biblical verses about what constitutes acceptable marriage and behavior, it excuses itself ever more greatly from the conversation as a good source for lawmaking, which requires precision and little room for interpretation.

Posted 2018-09-06 03:30:48

Phos HalasGuitar Kirby, I wouldn't mind if you provided some further context right now actually. You referenced Genesis 4:19 in relation to your post about the alternative forms of marriage "considered acceptable" in the Bible. Well, anyone who cares to check the reference will quickly see Gen. 4:19 is simple a statement about one of Cain's descendants marrying two wives, it is not a statement of approval of this action. In fact polygamy was explicitly forbidden in Scripture. (Deuteronomy 17:17) The way you reference Genesis 4:19 as though it was a statement of approval would kind of be like me referencing Exodus 2:12 and saying murder was acceptable.

I apologize, because I know you're in the middle of a debate and do not mean to sidetrack you, however I do think your handling of Biblical texts needs to be addressed. Also, "rape" is nowhere in the context of Deuteronomy 22, but suppose it was even, given the social/cultural context of the time, marrying someone who took your virginity or otherwise "used" you was a construct for the survival of that woman, nobody from there one out would have married her and she would have had no provider or offspring.

So what I'm saying is giving the "sticky notes" version of these verses that you gave can be a little misleading. Again, I understand this wasn't a debate over Biblical text, but I did feel compelled to address this.